Appeal No. 97-4242
Application 08/451,281
Appellants’ invention pertains to a fall protection
safety suit. An understanding of the invention can be derived
from a reading of claim 1, a copy of which appears in the
“APPENDIX” to the brief (Paper No. 15).
As evidence of anticipation, the examiner has applied the
document specified below:
Hoagland et al 2,979,153 Apr.
11, 1961
(Hoagland)
The following rejection is before us for review.
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Hoagland.
The full text of the examiner's rejection and response to
the argument presented by appellants appears in the final
rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 11 and 16), while the
complete statement of appellants’ argument can be found in the
brief (Paper No. 15).
OPINION
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007